Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for posting the draft charter, just have one comment:

The  WG's specification deliverables include "A document that
specifies FTP extensions to support IPv4/IPv6 translation scenario"
but there is no corresponding Goals and Milestones?

Best regards,
Dapeng Liu

2010/10/18, Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>:
> I think the problem is that there isn't a FTPEXT WG yet & it doesn't
> seem definite that there will be one.
>
> I've been posting a draft charter (included here) but...not sure what
> the next step is.
>
> I added draft-liu-ftp64-extension, which I just saw turn up.
>
> somewhat on topic, does anyone know how to change the WG in xml2rfc?
>
>
>
> FTP Extensions, 2nd edition (ftpext2) Charter
>
> Chair(s):
>      TBD
>
> IETF Area:
>      Applications Area
>
> Applications Area Directors:
>      Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
>      Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
>
> Responsible Area Director:
>      Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
>
> Mailing list:
>      General Discussion: ftpext@ietf.org
>      Archive:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext/current/maillist.html
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> The Standard File Transfer Protocol specification in RFC 959
> has been updated several times with command extensions of one
> sort or another, including those based on the extension
> mechanism of RFC 2389 (a complete list appears in RFC 5797 and
> the corresponding IANA registry at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ftp-commands-extensions/ftp-commands-extensions.xhtml
> ).
>
> The following are active FTP related drafts:
>
>     draft-bryan-ftp-hash
>     draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts
>     draft-liu-ftp64-extension
>     draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions
>     draft-preston-ftpext-deflate
>
> The Working Group will:
> * Review and finalize drafts listed above.
> * Continue work on other drafts that are already in progress.
> * Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP RFCs.
> * Investigate the differences between FTP in theory
>   (current RFCs) and practice, and recommend future work to align them.
>
> The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
> * A document that specifies the HOST command (Proposed Standard).
> * A document that specifies the HASH command (Proposed Standard).
> * A document that specifies FTP extensions to support IPv4/IPv6
> translation scenario.
>
> The Working Group must not introduce a new version of FTP, e.g.
> an incompatible FTP 2.0.
>
> Goals and Milestones
> Oct 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
> Hosts' as working group item (draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts will be
> used as a starting point)
> Oct 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
> Cryptographic Hashes' as working group item (draft-bryan-ftp-hash will
> be used as a starting point)
> TBD 2010    Working group Last Call of HOST document
> TBD 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
> Hosts' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
> TBD 2011    Working group Last Call of HASH document
> TBD 2011    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
> Cryptographic Hashes' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
> Standard
> TBD 2011    Close or recharter
>
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:18 AM, William F. Maton <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
>>
>> Punt it into ftpext2 please, otherwise there's not much point to having
>> one.
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010, Robert McMurray wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to submit a new draft (see attached) that is unrelated to my
>>> other draft - should we be using FTPEXT2 as the WG? Or should continue to
>>> submit as individual drafts to the Applications Area?
>
>
> --
> (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
>   )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
> _______________________________________________
> ftpext mailing list
> ftpext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext
>